Pasquetti (Migration)

[2023] AATA 4736

Pasquetti (Migration) [2023] AATA 4736 (5 December 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Roberto Pasquetti
Ms Caterina Vergaglia

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Graham Nicholas John Copson (MARN: 1575606)

CASE NUMBERS:  2302278
2302283

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCES:             BCC2022/4772623
BCC2022/4773137

MEMBER:Rachel Da Costa

DATE:5 December 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:In respect of matter 2302278, the Tribunal remits the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Class FA) visa:

·Schedule 3 criterion 3004(c) and 3004(d) to the Regulations for the purposes of cl 600.223(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

DECISION:In respect of matter 2302283, the Tribunal remits the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Class FA) visa:

·Schedule 3 criterion 3004(c) and 3004(d) to the Regulations for the purposes of cl 600.223(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 05 December 2023 at 12:07pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Tourist stream – not holder of substantive visa at time of application – Schedule 3 criteria – factors beyond the applicant’s control – reliance on advice of migration agent – incorrect advice that Bridging visas would be granted – compelling reasons for granting the visa – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 600.223; Schedule 4, PIC 3004

CASES
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Secara & Ors (1998) 89 FCR 151
Su & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 318

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is a combined decision record in respect of two applications for review of separate decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 2 February 2023 to refuse to grant the visa applicants, Mr Roberto Pasquetti and his wife, Ms Caterina Vergaglia, Visitor (Class FA) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The visa applicants are citizens of Italy. The visa applicants most recently arrived in Australia on 8 August 2022 as holders of eVisitor (subclass 651) visas with an expiry date of 8 November 2022. On 28 October 2022, the visa applicants applied for Contributory Parent (Temporary) visas (subclass 173). Based on the evidence of the visa applicants and their former registered migration agent, Mr Felix Carao (MARN 1069354), Mr Carao was under the mistaken understanding that the visa applicants would be granted Bridging A visas in connection with their Contributory Parent visa applications. As a result, the visa applicants did not apply for a subsequent Visitor visa, as they thought they would be granted Bridging A visas to remain lawfully in Australia. They were not granted Bridging A visas, which meant that on 9 November 2022, they became unlawful non-citizens. They applied for the Visitor visas which are the subject of these applications for review on 9 November 2022, the day after their previous Visitor visas ceased.

3. On 6 December 2022, the Department wrote to the visa applicants requesting more information relating to factors beyond their control preventing them from lodging an application whilst holding a substantive visa and whether there were any compelling reasons for the grant of the visa.

4. The visa applicants responded with a letter from Mr Carao which states as follows:

   …

   I have assisted the above applicants in lodging a Contributory Parent (Temporary) (Class UT) (subclass 173) visa application on 28 October 2022 (File number BCC2022/4592536). I mistakenly assumed that the applicants will be granted a bridging visa A because they were onshore when the Sc173 was lodged.

   A day after their visa expired on 08 November 2022, upon confirmation that they were not granted a bridging visa on VEVO, I immediately lodged a subclass 600 visa with the consent of the applicants.

   I submit that the applicants meet schedule 3 criteria for the following reasons:

   ·The applicants are without a substantive because of factors beyond their control.

   ·The applicants have substantially complied with all the other visa conditions on their previous tourist visa.

   ·The applicants have not gained any advantage by remaining in Australia without a substantive visa as they were previously granted a one year – 3 month stay multiple entry tourist visa.

   ·The applicants will meet the criteria for the tourist visa to be granted

   …

5. On 2 February 2023, the delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that they were not satisfied that there were factors beyond the visa applicants’ control that prevented them from lodging the current Visitor visa applications while holding a substantive visa or that there were compelling reasons for the grant of the visa. Therefore, the delegate found that the visa applicants did not meet cl 600.223 because they did not satisfy Schedule 3 criterion 3004.

6. On 20 February 2023, the visa applicants applied for review of the delegate’s decisions in each of their cases. The visa applicants provided copies of the delegate’s decisions to the Tribunal.

7. The hearing was conducted using the Microsoft Teams (MS Teams) videoconference platform. The visa applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 1 December 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicants’ son and daughter. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Italian and English languages.

8. The visa applicants were represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

9. With the agreement of the visa applicants and their representative, the Tribunal heard the two applications for review concurrently given the visa applicants are a married couple and their circumstances and evidence are the same. The Tribunal considered that this was an efficient, fair and appropriate way to proceed.

10. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

11. At the time the visa applications were lodged, Class FA contained one subclass, Subclass 600 (Visitor), with a number of different streams. In this case the visa applicants applied for the visas seeking to satisfy the primary criteria in the Tourist stream.

12. The criteria for a Subclass 600 visa are set out in Part 600 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). Relevantly to this case, they include cl 600.223.

13. Clause 600.223 provides:

    (1)  If the applicant was in Australia at the time of application, and held a substantive temporary visa, the visa was not a Subclass 403 (Temporary Work (International Relations)) visa in the Domestic Worker (Diplomatic or Consular) stream.

    (2)  If the applicant was in Australia at the time of application, and did not hold a substantive visa:

    (a)  the last substantive visa the applicant held was not a Subclass 403 (Temporary Work (International Relations)) visa in the Domestic Worker (Diplomatic or Consular) stream; and

    (b)  the applicant satisfies Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003, 3004 and 3005.

14. The delegate found that the visa applicants did not satisfy the requirements of criterion 3004.

15. Criterion 3004 provides:

    If the applicant:

    (a)  ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994; or

    (b)  entered Australia unlawfully on or after 1 September 1994 and has not subsequently been granted a substantive visa;

    the Minister is satisfied that:

    (c)  the applicant is not the holder of a substantive visa because of factors beyond the applicant's control; and

    (d)  there are compelling reasons for granting the visa; and

    (e)  the applicant has complied substantially with:

    (i)  the conditions that apply or applied to:

    (A)  the last of any entry permits held by the applicant (other than a condition of which the applicant was in breach solely because of the expiry of the entry permit); and

    (B)  any subsequent bridging visa; or

    (ii)  the conditions that apply or applied to:

    (A)  the last of any substantive visas held by the applicant (other than a condition of which the applicant was in breach solely because the visa ceased to be in effect); and

    (B)  any subsequent bridging visa; and

    (f)  either:

    (i)  in the case of an applicant referred to in paragraph (a) — the applicant would have been entitled to be granted a visa of the class applied for if the applicant had applied for the visa on the day when the applicant last held a substantive or criminal justice visa; or

    (ii)  in the case of an applicant referred to in paragraph (b) — the applicant would have satisfied the criteria (other than any Schedule 3 criteria) for the grant of a visa of the class applied for on the day when the applicant last entered Australia unlawfully; and

    (g)  the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and

    (h)  if the last visa (if any) held by the applicant was a transitional (temporary) visa, that visa was not subject to a condition that the holder would not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted an entry permit, or a further entry permit, while the holder remained in Australia. 

16. The issue in this case is whether the visa applicants meet criterion 3004. Criteria 3003 and 3005 are not relevant to this review.

    Do the visa applicants meet the requirements of cl 600.223?

17. Based on the evidence before it, including the visa applicants’ Visitor visa application forms and movement records of the Department of Home Affairs, the Tribunal finds that the visa applicants were in Australia at the time they applied for their Visitor visas on 9 November 2022. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal also finds that the visa applicants’ previous substantive visas, which were Visitor visas, had ceased on 8 November 2022.

18. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the visa applicants were in Australia at the time of application, and did not hold substantive visas and the last substantive visas they held were not a Subclass 403 (Temporary Work (International Relations)) visa in the Domestic Worker (Diplomatic or Consular) stream. On that basis, the visa applicants must satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001 and 3004.

    Do the visa applicants meet criterion 3001?

19. Criterion 3001 requires that the visa application must have been made within 28 days after the relevant day. The relevant day is defined in criterion 3001(2) as 28 days from the date the applicant last held a substantive visa.

20. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the visa applicants’ last substantive visas ceased on 8 November 2022 and they lodged their applications for Visitor visas on 9 November 2022. Therefore, their applications were lodged within 28 days of the relevant day and they meet criterion 3001.

21. The visa applicants must also meet criterion 3004.

    Do the visa applicants meet criterion 3004?

22. As set out above, criterion 3004 includes a number of requirements. Criterion 3004(c) requires that the Minister be satisfied that the applicant is not the holder of a substantive visa because of factors beyond the applicant's control.

23. In their Visitor visa application forms lodged on 9 November 2022, the visa applicants state that they wish to extend their stay so they can spend more time and visit more of Australia with their children and grandchildren.

    Evidence before the Tribunal

24. In a Statutory Declaration dated 31 August 2023 made jointly by the visa applicants, they relevantly state:

    …

    2. I, Roberto PASQUETTI had recently closed my business and was looking to retire, and I, Caterina VERGAGLIA was working at a Government School decided to take extended leave to visit our family in Australia.

    3. We arrived in Australia on 08/08/2022 and we had plans to visit and stay with our son and daughter during our visit to Australia.

    4. Our son Alberto Pasquetti lives with his partner Amelie Pasquetti and our granddaughter Norah Pasquetti, they are Australian permanent residents living in Alice Springs, Northern Territory.

    5. Our daughter Stefania Pasquetti lives with her partner Simone SAID, she is an Australian citizen and lives in Burleigh Heads on the Gold Coast, Queensland.

    6. My daughter, Stefania is expecting their first child on 12/10/2023.

    7. On 15/09/2022 we engaged the services of a Registered Migration Agent Felix Carao (MARN 1069354) to provide immigration assistance to explore the opportunity of retiring in Australia. It was suggested and we agreed to lodge a Contributory Partner Temporary (subclass 173) visa. This was lodged on 4/11/2022.

    8. At the time we were advised by Registered Migration Agent Felix Carao (MARN 1069354) that we would obtain a bridging visa to allow us to remain in Australia until the grant of our visa.

    9. Whilst we did not at that time feel that we needed the bridging visa we were keen to be in Australia when our daughter's baby was to be born.

    10. When our Visitor visa was getting close to expiring, we contacted our Registered Migration Agent, as we did not appear to have received a bridging visa.

    11. We were reassured by our Registered Migration Agent that this would be coming soon.

    12. On 8/11/2022, our Visitor visa expired and despite the reassurance we did not have a bridging visa.

    13. Unfortunately, we had become inadvertently unlawful.

    14. Upon discovery and within 24 hours, our Registered Migration Agent immediately lodged a Visitor (subclass 600) visa for us. This allowed us to be granted a Bridging Visa C to allow us to stay in Australia until a decision was made on our Visitor visa to allow us to remain with our children and their families.

    …

    We have never overstayed in any country that we have visited in the past, we have always complied with each country's laws, and we have never been in trouble with the law in our own country of Italy. We have acted on advice of a Registered Migration Agent who sadly provided inaccurate information, upon discovery we made every effort to remedy the situation by applying for a further visa, we have never sought to take advantage of a country, and our Australian children their partners and our grandchildren will be disadvantaged as we will be forced to return back to Italy without being with our new Australian grandchild.
    …

25. A copy of Mr Carao’s letter to the Department is attached to the Statutory Declaration. 

26. In the Tribunal hearing, the visa applicants gave evidence which is consistent with their Statutory Declaration. They explained that when visiting Australia in the past they had always arranged their own visas and they never had any problems. This time, after arriving in Australia and having been separated from their family for so long due to the Covid-19 pandemic, they decided they wanted to consider the possibility of staying for the longer-term and so with the assistance of their son they found the migration agent Mr Carao. Mr Carao gave them advice about applying for a Contributory Parent visa and told them that they would get a Bridging A visa which would allow them to remain in Australia while their application was processed. Due to language issues, the visa applicants’ son mainly dealt with Mr Carao and they were in contact by email and phone.

27. The visa applicants found out there was a problem with their status when Mr Carao contacted their son by phone and email and told them he had made a mistake and there was no Bridging visa. They immediately applied for new Visitor visas. The visa applicants explained that they were aware their Visitor visas expired on 8 November 2022, but because of Mr Carao’s advice about being granted Bridging visas they did not think there was a problem. They trusted Mr Carao and had paid him for his professional advice. As the 8 November 2022 deadline approached, the visa applicants had a conversation with their son about the fact that they had not received notification of their Bridging visas. They were not sure if their son contacted Mr Carao about this but they trusted the agent was doing the right thing.

28. In terms of compelling reasons for granting the visas, the visa applicants said the compelling reasons were family reasons. They have visited Australia four or five times previously and returned to Italy. They don’t want to be barred from visiting in the future. Their children and grandchildren live in Australia and they want to be able to see their grandchildren grow up.

29. In a Statutory Declaration dated 31 September 2023, the visa applicants’ son, Alberto Pasquetti states:

    …

    The COVID pandemic had been hard on my parents as both of their children are living and settled in Australia with their families.

    We are now permanent residents, and my parents came to see the new lives that we have created in Alice Springs. I have built a restaurant, and we were really looking forward to my parents being with us and getting to know their granddaughter.

    After staying with us in Alice Springs and my sister on the Gold Coast they decided that they wanted to retire to Australia. My father had recently retired, and my mother was on long service leave.

    They therefore applied for a Contributory Partner Temporary (subclass 173} visa, which they did on or around 4 November 2022 under the advice of their migration agent.

    At the time they were not aware that they had to apply for a new visitor visa as they had received advice from their registered migration agent that they would automatically receive a bridging visa once the 173 visa was lodged. Regrettably this was not true, and they became unlawful non-citizens.

    My parents have never been in trouble in their lives and were horrified. Their agent suggested lodging a new visitor visa to regularize their visa status.

    Sadly, this was refused, and this resulted in the appeal to the Administrative Appeal Tribunal.

    This error was truly a matter beyond their control. As parents they are genuinely good people who have taught us to be honest and live our lives with integrity.

    It is very difficult at this time to see them, and my Australian family suffer due to this oversight which was certainly beyond their control.

    …

30. In the Tribunal hearing, Alberto Pasquetti gave evidence that he was the person who made contact with Mr Carao and mainly dealt with Mr Carao because his parents don’t speak English. Their contact was via email and phone. Mr Carao provided advice about longer term options for the visa applicants to be able to remain in Australia and suggested applying for Contributory Parent visas. He advised that the visa applicants would be granted Bridging visas in association with their applications. As the 8 November 2022 deadline for the visa applicants’ Visitor visas to expire approached, Alberto Pasquetti contacted Mr Carao and asked him about the Bridging visas. Mr Carao told him that he was confident the Bridging visas would be granted, but it turned out he was wrong. Alberto Pasquetti referred to the fact that Mr Carao had acknowledged in his letter that what happened was his mistake.

31. In terms of compelling reasons for the grant of the visa, Alberto Pasquetti said the family apologised for what happened and they had put their trust in a professional so they did not expect this to happen. His parents have never had any problems in the past. He hopes the problem can be fixed so it does not jeopardise his parents’ ability to visit them in Australia in the future.

32. In a Statutory Declaration dated 31 August 2023, the visa applicants’ daughter, Stefania Pasquetti states:

    …

    During the COVID pandemic it was really difficult to be apart and this had had an impact on my parents' health and wellbeing. They were really looking forward to their visit to Australia to see how their children had settled.

    After some time, they decided to apply for a Contributory Partner Temporary (subclass 173) visa, which they did on or around the 4th of November 2022 under the advice of their migration agent.

    On applying for their Contributory Partner Temporary (subclass 173) visa they were advised that they would automatically obtain a bridging visa to stay in Australia by their agent. Unfortunately the advice was incorrect and they became unlawful.

    The agent immediately looked to lodge a visitor visa, which was done only a few hours after they became unlawful. This meant that they received a bridging visa.

    My parents are really disappointed, as they have never so much as received a traffic offence in their lives. They would never do anything that would breach a country's laws on purpose and were naturally devastated.

    The second disappointment was when they received a refusal which resulted in this appeal to the Administrative Appeal Tribunal. 

    …

1. Stefania Pasquetti gave evidence that she had no involvement in the dealings with Mr Carao. In terms of compelling reasons for granting the visas, she referred to family reasons and explained that they had been separated for three years due to the Covid-19 pandemic, during which time the visa applicants had two grandchildren born in Australia. She said they have a strong family culture and she wants them all to be able to spend time together. Also, the visa applicants have never had any issues with their visas in the past and they have always done the right thing and been lawful.

2. The visa applicants’ current registered migration agent provided written submissions. It is submitted that the visa applicants were given incorrect advice by their previous migration agent and it was this failure by the agent to submit their Visitor visa applications which led to the visa applicants becoming unlawful non-citizens. It is submitted that what occurred was due to factors beyond the control of the visa applicants. It is also submitted that there are compelling reasons for the grant of the visas. These reasons include the fact that the visa applicants relied on a third party to provide advice and lodge the appropriate applications to ensure they remained lawful and the emotional and financial toll this situation has taken on the visa applicants and their Australian children and grandchildren.

   Were the visa applicants not the holders of a substantive visa when they applied for their Visitor visas because of factors beyond their control?

3. In considering whether there are reasons which constitute factors beyond the applicant's control, the Tribunal has had regard to the decision in Su & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 318, which involved a Subclass 457 visa and Sch. 3 criterion 3004. While the application in that case was dismissed by the Court, the judgement provides guidance on the interpretation of the test of factors beyond the control of a person.

4. Smith FM, referring to the judgment of Mansfield J in Secretary, Department of Social Security v Secara & Ors (1998) 89 FCR 151, states at [17] that two useful points emerge from that case:

   The first is that a test of whether something was beyond the control of a person requires a consideration of whether that person, in his or her own particular circumstances, might have been able to do something to prevent the relevant event occurring. The test is in that sense "subjective", rather than being directed at deciding what would have been beyond the control of an abstract or "reasonable" person. A second point is that what is "beyond control" should be tested by considering whether the happening of the event was or was not within the control of the applicant in a practical or realistic sense.

5. Smith FM goes on to refer to further discussion by Mansfield J making the point at [18] that:

   it is difficult to regard as “beyond control” an event caused by forgetfulness or misunderstanding on the part of a person, where it was within the capacity of the person to appreciate what was needed and to perform an action which would have avoided the event occurring.

6. The Tribunal has considered all the evidence of the visa applicants and their children, as set out above, as well as the letter from Mr Carao and the visa applicants’ written submissions. The Tribunal found the visa applicants and their children to be honest, reliable witnesses and accepts their evidence.

7. The Tribunal accepts that the visa applicants had successfully managed their own visa applications in the past when they visited Australia and had abided by the conditions of those visas. The Tribunal accepts that they engaged the services of Mr Carao, with the assistance of their son, to seek advice and assistance on longer term visa options which was not something with which they were familiar. The Tribunal accepts that, on the advice of Mr Carao, the visa applicants lodged Contributory Parent visa applications on 28 October 2022 and that Mr Carao advised them that they would be granted Bridging A visas in connection with their applications which would enable them to remain lawfully in Australia while their visa applications were assessed. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicants were aware of the expiry date of their Visitor visas (8 November 2022). The Tribunal accepts that as the 8 November 2022 deadline approached and the visa applicants had not received notification of their Bridging visas being granted, they contacted Mr Carao with the assistance of their son, and Mr Carao reassured them that the Bridging visas would be granted. The Tribunal accepts that on 9 November 2022, Mr Carao advised the visa applicants that he had made a mistake and they would not be granted Bridging visas, and so with the assistance of Mr Carao, the visa applicants lodged new Visitor visa applications. The Tribunal notes that in his letter, Mr Carao takes responsibility for the visa applicants becoming unlawful due to his incorrect advice.

8. Based on the Tribunal’s findings above, The Tribunal considers that the visa applicants engaged the services of a registered migration agent, Mr Carao, to provide them with professional advice and assistance regarding their desired visa situation rather than attempting to manage it themselves, which was the appropriate thing to do. The visa applicants were aware of the 8 November 2022 expiry date of their existing Visitor visas and kept track of this. As the deadline was approaching, they contacted Mr Carao with the assistance of their son, to inquire about the fact that they had not yet been granted Bridging visas in connection with their Contributory Parent visa applications and Mr Carao reassured them that the Bridging visas would be granted. The visa applicants relied on Mr Carao’s professional advice and waited for the Bridging visas to be granted rather than lodging new Visitor visa applications or seeking a second opinion, which in the Tribunal’s view was understandable and appropriate in the circumstances. In the Tribunal’s view, the visa applicants would not have been able to take steps to avoid the event (their Visitor visas expiring when they did not hold a substantive visa) from occurring. The visa applicants sought professional advice, kept track of time, followed up when they had not received word their Bridging visas had been granted and, understandably, trusted and relied on the advice and reassurances of Mr Carao.

9. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicants were not the holders of substantive visas at the time they applied for their Visitor visas on 9 November 2022 due to factors beyond their control.

   Are there compelling reasons for granting the Visitor visas?

10. The Tribunal has considered whether there are compelling reasons for granting the visa applicants Visitor visas.

11. The term “compelling” is not defined in the Act or the Regulations and therefore should be given its ordinary meaning. The Macquarie Dictionary defines “compelling” as “demanding attention or interest” and “convincing”. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “compelling” as a verb “to urge irresistibly, to constrain, oblige, force” a person to do something. Case law that has considered the meaning suggests that to be compelling, the reasons in question must force or drive the decision-maker irresistibly to some end.[1]

    [1] Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50 at [31]

12. The visa applicants’ written submissions reflect this. It is submitted that the visa applicants relied on a third party to provide advice and to lodge a visa to ensure they remained lawful. The fact they became unlawful resulted in mental stress and economic loss to themselves and their children and grandchildren. It is submitted that the visa applicants have never had problems with their visas in the past and have always abided by the conditions.

13. In the Tribunal’s view, the evidence appears to indicate that if the visa applicants had applied for new Visitor visas before the expiry date of 8 November 2022, those visas would have been granted. It was due to the visa applicants’ reliance on Mr Carao, which the Tribunal has found was appropriate and justified in the circumstances, and his incorrect advice to them, that they became unlawful on 9 November 2022. The visa applicants immediately took steps to attempt to rectify the situation and Tribunal accepts that they have always abided by the conditions of their visas in the past. The visa applicants, understandably, have also expressed concern about the potential negative effect of these events on their migration record and their future ability to travel between Italy and Australia to see their family if the Visitor visas are not granted. The Tribunal is sympathetic to this. In all the circumstances, and in light of the Tribunal’s findings above, the Tribunal considers that there are compelling reasons for granting the Visitor visas.

    Conclusion

14. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that each of the visa applicants was not the holder of a substantive visa at the time they applied for their Visitor visas because of factors beyond their control. The Tribunal is also satisfied that there are compelling reasons for granting the Visitor visas.

15. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the visa applicants each satisfy Schedule 3 criterion 3004(c) and 3004(d).

    DECISION

16. In respect of matter 2302278, the Tribunal remits the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Class FA) visa:

    ·Schedule 3 criterion 3004(c) and 3004(d) to the Regulations for the purposes of cl 600.223(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

17. In respect of matter 2302283, the Tribunal remits the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) (Class FA) visa:

    ·Schedule 3 criterion 3004(c) and 3004(d) to the Regulations for the purposes of cl 600.223(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Rachel Da Costa
    Member